Tag Archives: Politics

Behind the ice-breaker meeting

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwan’s President Ma Ying-jeou shook hands ahead of an historic summit in Singapore last weekend. It is the first time since the Chinese Civil War ended and the nations split in 1949 that leaders from both sides have met.

Xi said the meeting “has opened a historic chapter in the cross-Strait relations, and history will remember today.” He also emphasized, “We (China and Taiwan) are one family.”

Relations between China and Taiwan have improved under Ma since he took office in 2008, with better economic ties, improving tourism links and a trade pack signed.

It is unfathomable why the meeting has taken place at this moment. From Ma’s side, there is a presidential election in Taiwan in January. Ma might take this meeting as an opportunity to give a boost to his party’s candidate, who is trailing in the polls. Also Ma built his presidency on his closer connection to China, so it is a good chance for him to meet Xi.

On Xi’s side, first, Xi wants to exert more of his political control over Taiwan. If he showed his favor in a certain party, in this case, the Nationalists, it might influence many Taiwanese voters’ decisions. If a Nationalists is elected as the upcoming president in Taiwan, it will maintain the policy of being close to China, which will be the ideal outcome for China.

We cannot foresee whether Xi’s meeting with Ma will boost the Nationalists or backfire. During the meeting, many Taiwanese protesters threw stones at the Taiwanese Parliament to demonstrate their anger on Ma’s intention of building a closer connection with China.

Interestingly enough, in Ma’s welcome address, he expressed his sincere hope for continually building peaceful and friendly relation between the strait.  Neither side put fingers on serious political conflicts and territory disputes. They both referred the other side as “sir” rather than his political titles. It is the first time ever in Chinese political reporting that no political titles were involved.

An arduous Korea-Japan summit

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

South Korea President Park Geun-hye and Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe held the first high-level meeting in Seoul on Monday. The meeting was postponed for more than three years because of historical issues and territorial disputes between two nations.

Before this one-and-one-half hours meeting were the months of diplomatic negotiations. However, they produced no breakthrough. South Korean KBS reported that Korea-Japan summit mainly discussed the issue of so-called comfort women — tens of thousands of Korean and other Asian women sent to work at front-line brothels for Japan’s World War II military. Park asked Japan to give a sincerely apologize and compensate the comfort women before they left the world, while Abe claimed that all the problems from Japan’s often brutal colonization of Korea from 1910 to 1945 have been resolved in Treaty on Basic Relations Between Korean and Japan in 1965.

According to the Japanese reports, Abe told Japanese reporters that he agreed to try to find an “early solution” to the subject of comfort women. He said he did not want to “leave an obstacle for the future generations in building” relations with South Korea.

The news has triggered uproar among the social media in Japan and Korean. One of the interesting topics is the summit didn’t prepare a luncheon for Abe, so Abe and the Japanese ambassador went to eat barbecue in Seoul themselves.

Sankei Shimbun reports that, according to the shop, Abe ordered Korean beef tenderloin and spiced pork. The lunch also lasted one and a half hours and Abe finished all of his meal. Many Japanese netizens expressed their dissatisfaction with Park Geun-hye. They criticized Park Geun-hye, saying the leader had no common sense.

The meeting was a chance for both Park and Abe to save face, but both were in an awkward position. It is still unknown if the two countries can possibly reach a final agreement.

‘Offend America Again’ Trump on SNL

Posted on by

By ELAYNA PAULK

NBC is currently under fire for being the hosting network for “Saturday Night Live,” which has recently agreed to allow Donald Trump to be its most recent special guest.

Protesters argue that it is the values of Donald Trump that make his appearance on a comedy show “not funny” and “blatantly disrespectful”. American Actor, John Leguizamo has gone as far as boycotting the show and says that if Trump Hosts then “I won’t watch SNL anymore”.

“I’m all for freedom of speech, don’t get me wrong. I believe in freedom of speech,” Leguizamo said in a Yahoo News interview. “This is different … If he had said those things about any other ethnic group, he would not be on that SNL.”

Leguizamo continued, “I mean for him to go around saying that Mexican people are coming across the border are murders and rapists and all the horrible things he said is so dangerous,” Leguizamo said in the interview. “People have been hurt because of his words, because he incited. And he said, ‘well, my followers are very passionate,’ which is also his lack of sympathy and empathy is ridiculous.”

Media outlets such as ABC, Entertainment Weekly, Business Insider, and CNN Money have since reported the incident by remaining neutral. The issue remains though, if we keep using Donald Trump for comedic entertainment, can we trust him as a politician?

Carson: Fact-checking or dirt digging?

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

Despite Ben Carson’s quiet and often soft-spoken demeanor, according to his book “Gifted Hands,” he had a troubled and violent childhood growing up in the city of Detroit.

Recently several news organizations, including CNN, have begun “digging up dirt” on the Republican candidate, with Carson’s claim of a rough childhood at the center of the coverage.

As candidates are running for the highest and most powerful position in the United States and perhaps the world, it is expected that old skeletons will be hunted down and taken out of the candidates’ closets. But is there a point of going too far?

Despite Carson’s public claims of his troubled childhood, as well as those mentioned in his book, CNN has assigned a journalist to investigate Carson’s claims and has reached out to past neighbors and childhood friends of Carson in the hopes of either validating or invalidating Carson’s story.

Carson has often spoken about a particular incident during his childhood in which he tried to stab a friend with a knife over a disagreement about a radio.  The journalist assigned to investigate Carson’s story has been researching the candidate in regards to his claims for the past month and CNN has asked Carson to aid the network in finding witnesses who saw the stabbing attempt as well as the victim of the attack.

Carson has declined to provide CNN with these names and for some news reporters Carson’s unwillingness to help raises further suspicion of whether or not his claims of his childhood are true. Perhaps Carson is not willing to provide the names of witnesses or the victim of his attack, not to hide the truth, but to protect the lives and privacy of those involved.

Every candidate running for president has had their lives turned upside down and scrutinized from what they wear to what they wrote in their high school newspaper 30 years ago. I think Carson is making the right decision not to provide CNN with the names of witnesses or the victim to protect them from the harsh and often unforgiving spotlight of public opinion and news media.

Carson is not alone when it comes to news networks “digging up dirt” and publicly scrutinizing his past. Recently, several news organizations, in addition to Donald Trump, have called out Marco Rubio for his personal use of a credit card that was only to be used for political purposes relating to the Republican Party. CNN has went as far as to list out the date, location, and exact dollar amounts used for personal use.

I do think that this information is pertinent for the American public to be aware of as it pertains to Rubio’s misuse of a professionally provided credit card. However, as illustrated with Ben Carson, I do think that sometimes the media can cross the line between fact-checking and digging for dirt.

Chaotic GOP debate causes concern

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

This past Wednesday night, I gathered with a group of students inside the faculty master apartment at Mahoney Residential College to watch the Republican presidential candidates debate.

Personally, I had several expectations for the debate based off of the previous Republican debate hosted by Fox. However, what myself and millions of people watched Wednesday night, was truly unexpected.

First off, there were 10 candidates on the stage. With so many candidates, it is hard to keep track of everyone’s stance on serious matters, such as reforming the tax code, to less relevant issues, such as the regulation of fantasy sports gambling.

But, what further complicated the already difficult matter of keeping track of all of the candidates’ viewpoints were the moderators. It became apparent very quickly that the moderators were not in control of the debate as candidates not only cut each other off, but also interrupted, talked over and even challenged the moderators.

The debate was two hours of utter chaos and the Republican candidates are not happy about it. Their discontent has been broadcast and shared on various networks and social media sites, with new reports of the candidates coming together to protest the RNC and demand control over who moderates the upcoming debates as well as what questions are asked.

While I understand, that the candidates are upset, I think it would not be a true or fair debate if candidates had the ability to control virtually all aspects of the debate. While Ben Carson believes that debates should not be a game of “gotcha” questions, I disagree. Yes, a debate’s main purpose is to allow candidates to share and explain their platform on several issues and policies affecting the country, but it is also an opportunity for their ideals to be tested and challenged in front of the public.

A debate should not be a time where candidates walk on stage and present their ideals unchallenged and unquestioned–that is the whole point of a debate. While I agree with the candidates that Wednesday’s debate was chaotic, it should not serve as the catalyst to grant candidates full reign over all aspects of a debate.

Joe Biden and CBS’ ’60 Minutes’

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

Vice President Joe Biden made an announcement last week that he will not seek the 2016 nomination of the Democratic Party for president. Although it ended the subject about whether he will step back or not, the speculation of the reason came as follow.

On Sunday, Vice President Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, appeared on CBS “60 Minutes,” telling about the reason he decided not to seek the nomination: the impact of the loss of his son, Beau, and his views on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

The vice president said in the interview that he knew he couldn’t win because he thought he and his staff couldn’t put together the campaign that their supporters deserved and contributors deserved. He also explained the reason — “the single most important thing in deciding not to run” is the loss of his son, Beau. The loss overturned the schedules.

Beau Biden supported Joe Biden to run for the president and thought he could win, while Maureen Dowd in The New York Times wrote about it and described Beau on his death bed said to his father, ”Dad, you’ve got to run.” This description was proved false in the interview.

Biden also discussed his comments reported by The New York Times last week that he didn’t mean to aim at Hillary Clinton herself and that they are friends.

“Go back and find anybody who says, for the four years we worked together, Hillary and I weren’t friends,” Biden said.

Moreover, Biden addressed his disappointment with Donald Trump directly and called him a showman. He wanted Trump to reconsider his remarks on immigrants.

CNN, NBC, The New York Times and many mainstream media covered this interview and they put particular emphasis on a different aspect of the story. CNN mostly covered “no Hollywood Moment” and the headline from NBC referred to Biden’s comment that he couldn’t win. The New York Times, which was mentioned twice in the interview, tells more about his family concerns. However, none of them made a comment about Biden’s disappointment with Trump.

Lego versus Ai Weiwei

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Artist Ai Weiwei accused Lego of “censorship and discrimination” because the latter refused to sell its bricks to him because his new artistic work may convey a political statement.

According to Ai, Lego rejected Ai’s bulk order of bricks, saying that its bricks could not be used for any artworks that may of “any political, religious, racist, obscene or defaming statements.”

In response to Lego’s refusal, many fans and artists demonstrate their supports for Ai. Many of them donated their bricks to Ai, hoping that their donations could adding the amount of bricks to the degree that Ai can accomplish his Melbourne show. Some people also expressed their opinions on their social website such as Instagram or Twitter. One used Lego’s toy bricks to spell out the word “I support Ai Weiwei” and added a cutline that “we won’t be buying anymore.”

Ai wrote on his Instagram that “Lego will tell us what to do, or not to do. That is awesome!” to make an irony here because Lego has a slogan “everything is awesome”.

Ai was an artist known for his fierce criticism of Chinese government. Last year, Ai used Lego bricks in his art show at the former Alcatraz prison, near San Francisco, to create portraits of 175 dissidents who had been jailed or exiled, from Nelson Mandela to Edward Snowden. He intended to hold a similar art display in Melbourne.

Ai has changed the theme of his upcoming artistic show to defend freedom of speech and “political art,” due to Lego’s rejection of selling its bricks.

From where I stand, I consider that Lego’s behavior is for the sake of its future cooperation with the Chinese government. Lego plans to build a new Legoland in Shanghai. For Lego, building a theme park is apparently more profitable than selling bricks to an artist. Given that Chinese government is not welcoming Ai, Lego would absolutely not offend and annoy its future cooperator, Chinese government, by selling Ai bricks and indirectly assist Ai to demonstrate unpleasant arts to Chinese government.

Essentially, it is another story about people who stand on the tip pyramid of money and power win the game, or rather, make the rule.

Canada gets a ‘good-looking PM’

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

Justin Trudeau, 43-year-old political leader, makes his way to the stage at Liberal party headquarters in Montreal on Monday, Oct. 19, after winning the 42nd Canadian general election. As the elder son of former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau has a handsome looking and great enthusiasm is sports. He is called by foreign media as the “sexiest leader in the world.”

“Canada’s Good Looking PM” has become a heated discussion, and Justin Trudeau and his government even built a Chinese micro blog account for Chinese Internet users. It is one of the most searched topic in micro blogs and has more than 60.000 followers.

Justin Trudeau and his government updated their campaign and their election platform such as Justin Trudeau promised to respond to Canada’s economic slowdown by running modest deficits and building infrastructure. He has refused to raise Canada’s corporate tax rate. He has been noncommittal on the new trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and he has promised, vaguely, that Canada will have a more progressive climate change policy.

According to CBC News, messages of congratulations to Justin Trudeau are coming in from world leaders. Reuters reported Tuesday that The White House congratulated Trudeau on his win.

Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi offered a warm welcome on Twitter, “Looking forward to seeing you at G20,” and other welcoming tweets came from India, Mexican Malaysia and The Maldives.

Although the Canadian media coverage says that the liberal win trends worldwide, many U.S. coverage may prefer to conclude that the winning of Justin Trudeau is “low expectation and high relief.” The victory denied a fourth term to Harper and his Conservative party, and people would like to see him clean up the mess at this term.

Chafee’s campaign comes to end

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

When I was going through the news this morning, I noticed that among the headlines regarding the primary race for the upcoming 2016 election was Lincoln Chafee’s announcement that he was ending his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Being that Chafee is the former governor of Rhode Island, my home state, I had been keeping up with his campaign since he announced his participation this past June. Since then, he hasn’t had an overwhelming amount of support behind him – Hillary Clinton has surely been stealing the spotlight lately, especially this past week where she did well in the debates and her competition, Virginia Senator Jim Webb as well as Vice President Joe Biden, both dropped out. The fact that he followed suit isn’t exactly groundbreaking news to many.

Regardless, seeing the announcement brought back a few memories of when he was actively governing my home state that made me think about all the pressures that politicians face when they constantly have the media watching their every move.

Chafee’s son, Caleb, was actually a high school classmate of mine when I attended Portsmouth Abbey School. He was in the graduating class above mine and we were good friends, as we both boarded on campus and it was a close-knit community. The week of his graduation, all the seniors ended their classes earlier than the rest of the students, and we had final exams while they were celebrating “grad week” – an annual week notorious for off-campus parties.

Caleb threw a party at his house while his parents were out of town and one girl who attended it ended up being hospitalized for alcohol poisoning. Everyone there was obviously under age, and the police inevitably got involved. Suffice to say, it stirred up a lot of publicity seeing as the party took place at the governor’s house and Rhode Island has a strict social host law which left Gov. Chafee responsible for the events that took place there. It was a bit of a local scandal in the weeks surrounding the incident.

Obviously what had happened was innocent enough, and there wasn’t that much damage done by the news media to Chafee’s reputation in the aftermath, but it did leave an impact on Caleb’s personal life (he ended up having to defer a year from Brown to do community service abroad in order to restore the University’s confidence in him as a freshman admit).

At the time, I didn’t really know much about the news media’s role in politics, but now that I’m a journalism major, it makes me more fully understand how critical that role is. Had the incident happened this past spring, Chafee may never have decided to even enter the race at all, considering it would have occurred in entirely different circumstances.

The incident would have been magnified under the lens of the news media and entire nation would have known about it — and it would have been used as a weapon against him by his competitors.  The things that occur to a person have an entirely different meaning when that person is a potential presidential candidate and it is the media that is single-handedly responsible for this fact.

Although the incident happened years ago and is water under the bridge at this point in time, especially since Chafee is no longer campaigning, it’s very interesting to me how I can look at the things that have happened in the past now with the eyes of a journalist, rather than just another on-looker.

Hillary emerges as victorious at hearing

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

If you checked major news networks online today, most of them displayed the following headlines:

ABC: “The ‘get Hillary’ committee did not get Hillary”

Politico: “Clinton Survives 11-hour Benghazi grilling”

Tribune: “11-hour grilling of Clinton reveals little new on Benghazi attacks”

USA Today: “No clear wins for GOP at Benghazi hearing”

Over the course of the past few months, Hillary Clinton has been questioned — and most people would say attacked — regarding the use of her personal email service in relation to the Benghazi attacks that took place in 2012 killing four people.

It seems as though Hillary Clinton has been questioned about the use of her private email server since the beginning of her campaign.

Hillary was questioned and provided testimony for more 11 hours yesterday, being questioned by a House Select Committee on Benghazi. Nearly all news organizations provided extensive and in-depth coverage of the meetings, with CNN providing hourly updates on their website and on live news.

Based on what I have seen, what is happening to Hillary Clinton is the political equivalent of a witch hunt during the Salem trials. Hillary Clinton has been questioned beyond the point of acceptability regarding this issue and each time, her response is the same and clear. The fact that the media has still continued to cover this issue in regards to Hillary Clinton is unbelievable, as well as the fact that this special committee was even created.

Comparatively, the news has covered Donald Trump in a similar fashion, but the coverage has only seemed to benefit him. However, with Hillary Clinton, the coverage of this issue is affecting her campaign.

Her numbers have gone down in the polls and her trustworthiness has been damaged and questioned by a large majority of the American public. However, there is hope for Hillary with this situation. As indicated by the news/article titles above, it is clear that most news networks believe that Hillary not only survived the 11-hour meeting, but that she has gained an ability to turn the tide and direction of the Benghazi story and her private email server.

As a young voter, I did question Hillary’s trustworthiness because of the coverage of the Benghazi “email scandal.” After completing my own research on the topic, my views have changed and I am proud that Hillary was able to not only successfully survive yesterday’s meeting, but that she may now be able to gain control over the situation and thus her campaign.

Coverage of Joe Biden’s announcement

Posted on by

By SAMANTHA COHEN

Joe Biden finally spoke on the sought-after decision as to whether or not he would be running for president in the 2016 election.

That answer is No.

The press conference at the White House Rose Garden was a sudden event with no prior knowledge given to the public or press that it was happening. The press was contacted mere hours before the statement took place. All press at moments notice ran to The White House to try and capture live shots moments before the start of the statement.

All online news organizations put breaking news messages on their website to alert readers. Live coverage was immediately available on every site. With the announcement of the statement, live coverage replaced set programs on each of these news television stations.

After the statement, coverage took place and every online news site had lead breaking news stories on Biden’s decision and what was said. There was discussion on the event thereafter in which we were able to hear opinions on the news. The manner in which news organizations were able to speedily obtain coverage of this event after not getting any notice that it was even happening is highly commendable and just goes to show how fast one has to react as a journalist.

I am interested to see how the discussions continue on this decision and how it will affect the rest of the political campaign.

Why the Chinese visit to UK matters?

Posted on by

By LINGYUE ZHENG

Chinese President Xi Jinping, arrived on Monday for his first state to the United Kingdom.

In the following days, he will address the members of the Houses of Parliament, visit Imperial College London, meet with the Britain’s prime minister and, probably kick a football in Manchester.

From Xi’s visiting schedule, it is apparent to conclude that China is seeking to build, or strengthen its cooperation with UK on technology and business. On Wednesday, Xi will visit UK-China Business Summit at Mansion House, companied with David Cameron. Then he will also visit Chinese telecommunication company Huawei Technologies.  On Thursday, Xi is scheduling to participate in a global satellite communication.

China is also interested in British infrastructure projects. British government would offer a $3 trillion guarantee to secure the new Hinkley Point nuclear plant and Chinese investment towards it. China is also hopes to get involved in the HS2 high-speed rail project.

From my personal understanding, Xi’s sought for cooperation on business and technology with the Britain can be seen as a method to adjust Chinese economy, for the growth speed and the drive.

For ages, China is devoted to shift from an export-led economy to consumer and service-led one. Since China’s economic growth drops to 6.9 percent in the third quarter, the weakest rate since the global financial crisis, which is below the government’s 7 percent target, Chinese are faced with restructuring pressure because it is not easy to transfer from a world-manufacture to a technological leader.

In the past years, Xi imposed more restrictions on industries that produce pollution and enacted several polices to combat bureaucratic corruption, reshaping Chinese economic landscape by decreasing industry investment and reducing government manipulation.

The reform will take long time to upgrade Chinese economy structure and rebound it economic growth.

Coverage of debate may sway voters

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

The first Democratic Debate took place this past Tuesday, hosted by CNN and sponsored by Facebook. The debate featured Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb, Martin O’Malley, and Lincoln Chafee. According to Fortune.com, more people watched NCIS (a popular TV Show on CBS) as opposed to the Democratic Debate Tuesday night, with 15.3 million total viewers.

Before, during, and after the debate, people took to various social media outlets to voice their thoughts and opinions of the debate. One of the dormitories on the University of Miami campus, Mahoney Residential College, held a watch party for the debate in the one of the faculty masters’ apartment.  Therefore, I did not have to turn to social media in order to receive live commentary from my peers.

We all watched the debate, laughed at its funny moments, clapped when were all in agreement with what one of the candidates had said, and groaned when in disagreement. In between commercial breaks we held quick discussions about our thoughts on the candidates so far.

At the end, we all had our own opinions of who to vote for as the democratic candidate. However, at no point during our discussion did we declare “winners” and “losers.” We all took what the candidates had to say at face value and decided whether or not we agreed with their values.

But the next day, I was bombarded by all major news networks declaring who they thought were the “winners” and “losers” of the debate. Of course in my mind (as well as most people), I had already determined who I thought best represented what I sought in a presidential candidate, but I was interested to see and hear what the news networks had to say.

As I read and watched several news stories from various news networks, it became clear that the person I thought did the “best” or “won” was not what the news thought. As I watched more coverage of the debate, I began to question my choice: Did I pick the best candidate? I began to second guess my decision wondering if I had made the right decision.

After speaking with several of my friends, a majority of them expressed the same sentiments. After watching the debate, they had an idea of who they wanted to potentially vote for. But after watching several news networks declare the same person as the “winner,” they began to doubt their choice as it was not in agreement with the majority of news organizations.

While I think that news organizations should report on the debates, I think they should do it objectively. Declaring “winners” and “losers” of a debate that was not designed to have a winner, can confuse and sway the public. Instead of selecting winners and losers, the news should highlight each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses during the debate, providing the public with unbiased information and enabling voters to make well-informed decisions.

The Democratic Debate did not have any winners or losers. Instead, the Democratic Debate showcased the strengths, weaknesses, values, and opinions of each candidate, and coverage of the debate should reflect that.

Media coverage on Flight 17 crash

Posted on by

By XIAO LYU

The crash of Malaysia Flight 17 was caused by a missile warhead, according to the Dutch Safety Board’s report on Tuesday.

Flight MH17 crashed in Eastern Ukraine in July 2014. Everyone on board was dead. Distressingly, many aviation accidents and incidents took place in 2014. They range from the missing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 to Malaysia Flight 17, from Algerian Air Force C-130 crash to TransAsia Airways Flight 222.

News media produced much coverage of those aviation accidents. They were filled with stories analyzing the facts and evidence of the crash. However, many of them were reckless and speculations, because they jumped to all sorts of conclusion without any interviews or data to support their theory. Such analysis is nothing less than the weather issues,  man-made causes,  terrorist attacks,  or aircraft malfunction. It now appears that the interpretation of lost of the Malaysia Airlines MH 370 was absurd. Almost every media covered the cause which is the disintegration in the air. CNN dedicated 100 percent of its coverage to flight 370,  even inviting a psychologist to talk about the possible causes of the crash. Later CNN theorized on their network’s website involving the highly unlikely scenario that the plane landed on a remote island in the Indian Ocean.

U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is the world’s most professional air accident investigation agency, but it should takes several months or even several years for them to complete the analysis. Therefore, reporters can’t make their conclusions recklessly.

In fact, most of the press did not show its responsibilities and the respect for the victims and their families. On the contrary, journalists made a fuss, creating the tense atmosphere. Also, they accused and shirked responsibility, misguiding the emotions and views of the publics and gradually became a conspiracy theory and led to the political debate.

During the investigation, the news we heard about was Russia and Ukraine accusing each other of causing the incident. As the Dutch Safety Board’s report was released, another round of uproar was set off. Russian national television is questioning the report — it showed that Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov echoed these denials on Tuesday, calling the Dutch report an “obvious attempt to draw biased conclusions,” according to the country’s state-run news agencies. “Russian Today” television released a short video, displaying a test involved detonating a BUK missile near the nose of an aircraft similar to a Boeing 777. It seems that the truth remains a mystery, especially under the media hype.

The responsibility of the press is to debunk myths and rumors, not to opine on events and make speculation from sources for capturing eyeballs, enhancing ratings, and boosting advertising revenue.

A new perspective on the debates

Posted on by

By ISABELLA MESQUITA

CNN produced a virtual reality version of last Tuesday’s presidential debate telecast and succeeded at what many major media companies have been competing to do since Samsung’s GearVR technology came out.

Not only was this real-time streaming a milestone for CNN technologically speaking, it was also a wise marketing choice. Despite the record 980,000 online viewers, around 73 countries logged onto the VR live stream causing the debates on CNN to be ranked as the #10 cable program with the greatest audience – behind college football games on ESPN and the Fox debate last month.

For the new VR technology streaming, two cameras were installed near the questioners, allowing VR viewers to see how the candidates reacted to each other. Another camera was placed right behind the candidates’ podiums and a fourth camera was embedded in the seating area. With this, anyone with the VR app or the VR headsets had a priviledged 360-degree view of the debate.

According to DJ Roller, co-founder of Next VR and CNN’s partner for the live-stream,“You’d probably get attacked by the Secret Service if you tried to get as close as these cameras! With VR each and every viewer has a seat in the room and a new perspective on presidential debates.” 

Debate coverage boosts Clinton

Posted on by

By SAMANTHA COHEN

On Tuesday night, the Democratic Party presidential candidate debates were in full swing. It was highly noticeable that news coverage was positively geared towards Hillary Clinton.

From CNN to NBC, all online news articles praised Clinton’s debate. CNN stated she was poised, passionate and in command. I find it interesting that all news organizations across the board, all agreed on something for once. Leading up to the debate all news organizations covered the debate on Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders would come up on top as the top candidates.

One of the main topics that was discussed during the debate, and it has been a trending topic on social media, is Bernie Sanders comment “America is Tired of Clintons Damn Emails.” What was also interesting during this debate is that Donald Trump used social media to live Tweet his thoughts during the debate. I think that it is very interesting to have a candidate actually weight in on a debate, as it is occurring, and reaching out to the public. Trump actually praised Clinton and said she won the debate. It should be interesting to see how this positive reaction affects the rest of the race.

Do the media know who is fighting ISIS?

Posted on by

By ANASTASIA MECHAN

Two days ago president Barack Obama sat down, after nearly two years, with Russian leader, Vladimir Putin. The encounter of both political icons was not just surprising to the world for the shared time, but for the topics they discussed. One of the main issues was the fight against ISIS.

President Barack Obama said that the fight was going to be a long-term campaign, but not impossible. He also affirmed that his supporters such as Iran and Russia will help through this. Even British minister David Cameron supported Obama’s thought and talked about the Islam.

However, Putin disagreed. He insisted that Syrian president Assad must stay in power. He believes that the world should help the Syrian government now more than ever, since they are the ones facing the battle face to face.

The news became the subject of the day until the next morning. Russia was reported firing missiles at a training camp in the north Syria.

So now, most people would be like isn’t the point to put a stop on the war on Syria?

Well, Russian warplanes bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, which puts Russian and Washington on opposing sides in the Middle East conflict.

Now the question is why does the media still focusing on just Obama and Putin sitting together and discussing about the fight against ISIS at the UN and White House? Why isn’t the media reporting about what is happening in the Syria right now and how Iran randomly is sending its troops to join the Syrian war?

These are the news that we need to hear, read and see, not just Obama sitting with the Putin and hear what he thinks we should do, instead of what are we doing.

CNN plays a Trump card

Posted on by

By BRIANA SCOTT

CNN was put on the defense this past Wednesday, after commenting on the lack of attendance at an event held by Donald Trump (current Republican candidate for president) at the South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce annual conference.

The following day, Trump went on the defense claiming that the reason there were photos or videos of the room being half-empty was because everyone “rushed” to the front of the room when he began speaking. He then went on to personally attack the CNN reporter who covered the story, calling her “terrible” and a “horrible reporter.”

But the CNN reporter was, in fact, reporting what had truly taken place at this event. The room was half-empty before Trump began speaking and after he began speaking. And of the half-full room of attendees, the majority of the people were white, disputing Trump’s claim that there were “many African Americans there.”

I watch the news on a daily basis and, based on what I have seen in regards to the coverage of Donald Trump’s campaign for presidency, it seems as though most news organizations have been tip-toeing around Trump afraid of his reaction.

This past week, Trump recently announced via Twitter that he was done with FOX and would not be doing any more shows with the network. But Trump has done this before. He threw a similar temper tantrum with FOX in August. Shortly after, he spoke with Fox’s network Chief Roger Ailes who “smoothed” things over and Trump was back on Fox.

As Trump has been garnering a large amount of attention from viewers, news networks are inclined to satiate the candidate and not ruffle his feathers in order to have him on their broadcasts for higher ratings. But it seems as though, more and more networks are reaching their limit with the brash candidate.

Shortly after CNN covered the story, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press reported on the story as well — mirroring CNN’s report. They all came to same conclusion: Donald Trump did speak to a half-empty room which consisted mainly of white people.

They didn’t beat around the bush or come up with excuses for the candidate. They simply reported on what actually happened, supporting CNN as a news organization. The Associated Press wrote in their article that, “CNN’s assessment appears to have been the correct one.”

I applaud CNN and the other news networks that stood behind CNN, for finally calling a spade, a spade Trump.

Coverage of Pope’s visit is excessive

Posted on by

By ELAYNA PAULK

Pope Francis is officially on U.S soil for the first time and he is getting news media coverage from all major news outlets.

From CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX news, Pope Francis is being covered by all angles. But why? Is it a moment in history? Or is it to appeal to the Catholic news audience?

CNN initially covered Pope Francis’ landing at Joint Base Andrews just outside Washington, D.C. It covered about three hours of the landing and official welcome from the president.

TIME reported the Pope’s following weekend schedule …

Friday, Sept. 25

8:30 a.m.: Pope Francis will address the United Nations General Assembly, which is celebrating its 70th anniversary. The Pope is also expected to attend bilateral meetings with the U.N. Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly.
11:30 a.m.: His Holiness will pray, meet with families and deliver an address at a multi-religious service at the Sept. 11 memorial and museum at the site of the World Trade Center.
4 p.m.: Before taking his motorcade through Central Park, the Pope will visit a third grade class at Our Lady Queen of Angels school, a 120-year-old institution in East Harlem.
5 p.m.: Motorcade through West Central Park between 72nd and 60th Streets. A ticket and valid ID is required to enter.
6 p.m.: Mass at Madison Square Garden.

Saturday, Sept. 26

8:40 a.m.: Pope departs New York for final leg of the trip. He’ll arrive in Philadelphia at 9:30 a.m.
10:30 a.m.: Mass at Cathedral Basilica of Sts. Peter and Paul, the mother church of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia
4:45 p.m.: The Pope is expected to talk immigration and religious during an address at Independence Mall
7:30 p.m.: Visit and prayer vigil at the World Meeting of the Families on Benjamin Franklin Parkway

Sunday, Sept. 27

9:15 a.m.: Pope will meet with Bishops at St. Martin’s Chapel, St. Charles Borromeo Seminary.
11 a.m.: Visit to Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility, the city’s largest jail.
4 p.m.: Mass at World Meeting of the Families.
7 p.m.: Meeting with World Meeting organizers, benefactors and volunteers.
8 p.m.: Official departure.

But what do we care? It’s imperative as news and information consumers that we understand the value of credible journalism. What can we really take away from a major news outlet that isn’t informed on crucial details?

Consider the ideas and motives of these news outlets, so that we’re not just consuming misinformation, but information that’s credible and worthy of consumption.

Trump re-enters war with Fox News

Posted on by

By CHARLOTTE MACKINNON

It is no secret that Donald Trump has been extremely vocal when it comes to his experiences with the news media during his campaign for office these past few months. He has notoriously bashed not only individual reporters, but entire news networks themselves, and much of this has been documented through his Twitter posts and live interviews. His controversial presence on social media and verbal attacks on individual journalists as well as entire news networks has become a defining factor of his campaign – let’s review.

One of the most substantial of these feuds occurred in early August, after Trump stepped out onto the Fox News debate stage and was questioned by reporter Megyn Kelly about his sexist remarks in the past. Trump responded the next day through a twitter tantrum attacking Kelly, as well as a few other Fox News personalities. He also addressed the debacle in an interview with CNN, saying, “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her … wherever.” Soon after the remark, he was disinvited to a Red State event by Erick Erickson, a Fox News contributor. It had appeared that Trump had started a war with one of the most influential networks, especially for Republicans.

Trump eventually mended his relationship with Fox News after clearing the air with Fox News CEO, Roger Ailes. But as of this past Wednesday, it appears that the “war” between Trump and Fox News is back on.

On Megyn Kelly’s Fox News talk show, conservative columnist Rich Lowry asserted that Carly Fiorina had castrated Trump during the CNN debate last week. Lowry referred to Trump’s private parts, saying that Fiorina had the “precision of a surgeon”.

Obviously, the statement created a lot of shock, prompting Trump to tweet that Lowry was “incompetent” and that “he should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.” The conflict continued to heat up, leading to Trump’s declaration via Twitter that he would be boycotting Fox News because the network has treated him “very unfairly”.

Fox News addressed Trump’s boycott in its statement about the cancellation of his scheduled appearance on “The O’Reilly Factor”, but declined to specify what had canceled the appearance. However, according to CNN, an unidentified Fox News spokesperson said about the issue: “When coverage doesn’t go his way, he engages in personal attacks on our anchors and hosts, which has grown stale and tiresome. He doesn’t seem to grasp that candidates telling journalists what to ask is not how the media works in this country.”

Now, we’re all waiting to see how long Trump’s latest war with the news media will last. A boycott with Fox News means that he will miss out on access to the millions of viewers who are tuning into the network each night for coverage of the 2016 race. And what will the repercussions be? As of Thursday afternoon, Trump is already down 8 points in the latest CNN/ORC national poll. Only time will show how his campaign will continue to be affected by the turmoil with Fox.

It’s important to pay close attention to Trump’s controversial relationship with the news media throughout his participation in the race. All of these feuds have been made extremely public, and the drama surrounding Trump’s campaign is going to play a crucial role in an election that we will all be impacted by. If there’s anything we need to be keeping up with, it’s the news coverage of the 2016 race – and  as we watch these disputes unfold, we will be able to observe, firsthand, the role that the news media play in politics and the impact that it can have.